Mobile GUI Agents powered by multimodal large language models (MLLMs) show promise in human-computer intelligence. However, current research primarily focuses on reactive task execution while lacking a comprehensive understanding-prediction-execution process for user intentions, which are the core requirements of active agents. In this paper, we propose the Act2Intention framework that builds an active mobile agent by integrating understanding, predicting user intentions, and executing decisions. First, we construct the Act2Intention Bench through data collection and validated generation, comprising 72,511 intentions and over 700,000 actions across 52 apps, thereby establishing the first benchmark for evaluating proactive agents via continuous intention-action trajectories. We further develop the Act2Intention Agent, achieving proactive services through Proactive-oriented Intention Understanding, Personalized Proactive Intention Prediction, and Experience-guided Intention Execution. Experimental results show that supervised fine-tuning on Act2Intention Bench yields absolute improvements of +32.0 Acc-S, +10.25 Acc-S, and +6.9 SSR points over non-fine-tuned counterparts under the same agent framework for intention understanding, prediction, and execution, respectively. This success underscores the necessity and value of the Act2Intention Bench, which establishes a standardized platform for developing and evaluating proactive agents and consequently paves the way for research on intention-driven human-computer interaction.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. The Act2Intention Framework illustrates a shift from reactive to active agents . (1) Reactive Agent can only passively assist until users send instructions. (2) Active agent understands, predicts the user’s intention through GUI actions, and thereby provides active services (Understanding → Prediction → Execution). A toy example of Act2Intention Bench is shown on the right.
Dataset
Episodes/Events
Platform
Avg.Steps
Continuity?
AndroidControl
15283
Mobile
5.5
no
AITW
715,142
Mobile
6.5
no
AITZ
2,504
Mobile
7.5
no
AMEX
8,000
Mobile
12.8
no
GUI-Odyssey
7,735
Mobile
15.4
no
ProactiveBench
6,790
Windows
-
yes
Table 1. Dataset comparison.
Notation
Meaning
Notation
Meaning
at
Atomic GUI action at step t
ot
GUI observation (screenshot + context) at step t
dt
Natural-language description of at
Ii
The i -th user intention
τi
Action trajectory for intention Ii
I^t+1
Predicted next intention
τides
Action description trajectory for Ii
pi,qi
Start/end indices of the i -th intention
T
Current timestamp
m
Total number of intentions in a session
P
User persona
fϕ,fθ,fπ
Models for understanding, prediction, execution
Table 2. Summary of key notations used in this paper.
Figure 2. Overview of bench construction . We generate trajectory data using both real and synthesized personas with LLMs and GUI Agents, followed by dual verification.
Stage
Example
Persona
A weather-conscious and socially active individual who frequently checks weather conditions through MyObservatory across multiple cities. This user maintains social connections via WhatsApp and Discord, shops online at Etsy, and navigates with Google Maps. Usage is concentrated in the afternoon and morning hours, suggesting an outdoor enthusiast who plans activities around weather conditions.
Scenario
Weekday schedule involving weather monitoring (MyObservatory), online shopping (Etsy), social messaging (WhatsApp), and nearby restaurant exploration (Google Maps).
Generated intentions
(1) 09:07, MyObservatory: Ask the Dr. Tin chatbot about the expected sunset time in New York.
(2) 17:10, Etsy: Search “coffee mugs” priced 5–20, sort by highest price, and add the third item to cart.
(3) 17:40, Google Maps: Explore nearby restaurants rated over 4 stars and get walking directions to the nearest one.
Action trajectories
For the Etsy intention, the agent executes the following steps:
Table 3. An example of persona-conditioned trajectory generation.
Stage
Generated
Retained
Filtered
Retention
Intention filter
73640
68210
5430
92.63%
Action filter
68210
59362
8848
87.03%
Table 4. Synthetic-data filtering.
Subset
Personas
Intents
P.C.Intents
Actions
Act2Intention
360
72511
161.14
705366
Act2Intention-RR
90
13149
146.10
134542
Act2Intention-RG
17678
196.42
181131
Act2Intention-GG
270
41684
154.39
389693
Table 5. Statistics of Act2Intention Bench.
Subset
Realism ↑
Achievability ↑
Persona Consistency ↑
Act2Intention-RR
4.19
4.62
4.30
Act2Intention-RG
3.91
4.00
4.06
Act2Intention-GG
3.55
3.79
4.01
Table 6. Human realism assessment of real and synthetic trajectories.
Figure 3. Dataset statistics and distribution.
Figure 4. Overview of Act2Intention Agent: Understanding Intentions from Actions, Predicting Needs Proactively, and Executing Tasks with Experience.
Models
Understanding
Prediction
Acc-G
Acc-S
BLEU-4
Acc-C
Acc-S
BLEU-4
Closed-source models
GPT-3.5-turbo
16.31
0.17
1.91
42.50
0.29
17.13
GPT-4o-mini
20.66
0.21
2.31
38.50
0.31
18.36
GPT-4o
20.08
0.25
5.32
34.50
0.32
16.74
Claude-3.5-haiku
24.28
0.24
4.12
28.50
0.17
14.27
Table 7. Evaluation results of Intention Understanding and Intention Prediction on the ID test set. All of the fine-tuned models achieve significant performance improvements on all metrics.
Table 12Table 13
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5. Overview of the data collection process.
Action
Description
CLICK[x, y]
Click on the position with coordinates [x, y]
LONG_CLICK[x, y]
Long-click at the position with coord. [x, y]
TYPE[text]
Input the content of “text” in the input box
SWIPE[direction]
Swipe in the specified direction
PRESS[KEY]
Press a key in “HOME”,“ENTER”,“BACK”
Appendix
Table 12. Action space.
Figure 6. Error analysis of semantic accuracy under correct segmentation.
Figure 7. Distribution of confidence scores. The dashed green line denotes the threshold θ=0.60 .
Setting
threshold
Push Rate (%)
Acc-S push
SR push
w/o fallback
–
100.0
0.31
22.7
w/ confidence fallback
0.80
14.0
0.44
34.6
0.60
40.0
0.39
29.4
Appendix
Table 13. Confidence-based fallback with Qwen-2.5-7B-SFT and UI-TARS-7B-SFT. The threshold θ=0.60 is the default decision threshold, while θ=0.80 is a stricter test setting.
Method
Understanding
Prediction
ID
OOD
ID
OOD
Acc-G
Acc-S
Acc-G
Acc-S
Acc-C
Acc-S
Acc-C
Acc-S
Gemini-1.5-pro
68.63
0.32
68.78 [+0.15]
0.31 [-0.01]
34.50
0.36
35.00 [+0.50]
0.36 [-0.00]
Llama-3.1-8B
6.03
0.11
6.13 [+0.10]
0.28 [+0.17]
37.80
0.33
37.50 [-0.30]
0.32 [-0.01]
Llama-3.1-8B-SFT †
97.31
0.47
84.58 [-12.73]
0.32 [-0.15]
54.20
0.39
43.55 [-10.65]
0.34 [-0.05]
Deepseek-7B
6.12
0.19
5.87 [-0.25]
0.19 [+0.00]
46.89
0.34
40.93 [-5.96]
0.28 [-0.06]
Appendix
Table 14. Generalization evaluation. Red indicates the performance difference between the ID and OOD test sets.
Figure 8. Performance comparison of different trajectory sequence lengths. (a) represents the process of understanding segmentation accuracy and semantic accuracy; (b) represents the process of prediction category accuracy and semantic accuracy.
Figure 9. Performance of different training sets. We fine-tuned Qwen-2.5-7B; (a) shows the results on intention understanding, and (b) shows the results on intention prediction. The combination “RR+RG+GG” achieves the highest overall performance in this experiment, suggesting that real and generated data are complementary for improving model generalization.
Figure 10. Effect of Persona on Intention Prediction.
Figure 11. A case of Intention Understanding and Prediction.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have made significant progress in mobile agent development, yet their capabilities are predominantly confined to a reactive paradigm, where they merely execute explicit user commands. The emerging paradigm of proactive intelligence, where agents autonomously anticipate needs and initiate actions, represents the next frontier for mobile agents. However, its development is critically bottlenecked by the lack of benchmarks that can address real-world complexity and enable objective, executable evaluation. To overcome these challenges, we introduce ProactiveMobile, a comprehensive benchmark designed to systematically advance research in this domain. ProactiveMobile formalizes the proactive task as inferring latent user intent across four dimensions of on-device contextual signals and generating an executable function sequence from a comprehensive function pool of 63 APIs. The benchmark features over 3,660 instances of 14 scenarios that embrace real-world complexity through multi-answer annotations. To ensure quality, a team of 30 experts conducts a final audit of the benchmark, verifying factual accuracy, logical consistency, and action feasibility, and correcting any non-compliant entries. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our fine-tuned Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct achieves a success rate of 19.15%, outperforming o1 (15.71%) and GPT-5 (7.39%). This result indicates that proactivity is a critical competency widely lacking in current MLLMs, yet it is learnable, emphasizing the importance of the proposed benchmark for proactivity evaluation.
Dezhi Kong, Zhengzhao Feng, Qiliang Liang +12
HyperAI Team, Xiaomi Corporation · Zhejiang University · Peking University +1
Current Graphical User Interface (GUI) agents operate primarily under a reactive paradigm: a user must provide an explicit instruction for the agent to execute a task. However, an intelligent AI assistant should be proactive, which is capable of anticipating user intentions directly from continuous visual inputs, such as mobile or desktop screenshots, and offering timely recommendations without explicit user prompting. Transitioning to this proactive paradigm presents significant challenges. Real-world screen activity is rarely linear; it consists of long-horizon trajectories fraught with noisy browsing, meaningless actions, and multithreaded task-switching. To address this gap, we introduce PIRA-Bench (Proactive Intent Recommendation Agent Benchmark), a novel benchmark for evaluating multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on continuous, weakly-supervised visual inputs. Unlike reactive datasets, PIRA-Bench features complex trajectories with multiple interleaved intents and noisy segments with various user profile contexts, challenging agents to detect actionable events while fitting to user preferences. Furthermore, we propose the PIRF baseline, a memory-aware, state-tracking framework that empowers general MLLMs to manage multiple task threads and handle misleading visual inputs. PIRA-Bench serves as an initial step toward robust and proactive GUI-based personal assistants.
Computer-Use Agents (CUAs) leverage large language models to execute GUI operations on desktop environments, yet they generate actions without evaluating action quality, leading to irreversible errors that cascade through subsequent steps. We propose IntentScore, a plan-aware reward model that learns to score candidate actions from 398K offline GUI interaction steps spanning three operating systems. IntentScore trains with two complementary objectives: contrastive alignment for state-action relevance and margin ranking for action correctness. Architecturally, it embeds each candidate's planning intent in the action encoder, enabling discrimination between candidates with similar actions but different rationales. IntentScore achieves 97.5% pairwise discrimination accuracy on held-out evaluation. Deployed as a re-ranker for Agent S3 on OSWorld, an environment entirely unseen during training, IntentScore improves task success rate by 6.9 points, demonstrating that reward estimation learned from heterogeneous offline trajectories generalizes to unseen agents and task distributions.
Rongqian Chen, Yu Li, Zeyu Fang +3
George Washington University, Washington D.C., USA